Would a Thompson be a good combat submachine gun for today?

I've seen pics of our troops raiding houses with antiquated soviet PPSh SMGs, because they didn't think that the M4 was adequate for the job. That seems to me to say that "WE NEED AN SMG NOWADAYS".....and if we were to apply modern methods into a tested & honed design, whose to say it wouldn't be a good firearm, either for noncom personnel or, say, close-quarters combat, etc? Because no matter how you look at the issue, the M4 using FA is NOT the thing that fills the hole SMGs left in our military.
Click to expand...

The M4 and similar rifle-caliber carbines don't fill the need for an SMG, they simply eradicate it and makes the whole concept of an SMG obsolete. Or more exactly, the rifle caliber assault carbine is the weapon the original SMG designers, Thompson included, would have made if they'd set out to make an SMG with 1990s or turn of the century technology rather than 1910s and 1920s technology.

Modern body armor does the same thing -- renders the pistol caliber SMG obsolete.

The Thompson ain't the answer for any questions we're currently asking in the military (the Thompson especially, being longer than an M4). A handful of MP5s handle those extremely rare situations where you do need something like that, but even those weapons, never very common to begin with, are dwindling fast. The rifle caliber carbine does the trick better than the pistol caliber SMG ever did.

As for a full automatic M4 (well, M4A1, actually) versus a fully automatic Thompson -- either allows troops to waste ammunition as fast as they can and otherwise accomplish very little.
 
Muskateer,
a couple of the other fellows in here have already answered your question. Yes I do like talking about old firearms. Yes there is certainly an interest for it. But really it's just what the questions says "would ________ be a good combat weapon today" It's not necessarily a question if they are better or worse than those made today (although cases can be made for better or worse 30.06 vs. .223, rifle grip vs. pistol grip, etc.). As someone else in here hinted at, the 1911 A1, although just over 100 years old, is still considered one of the best (if not THE best) semi automatic pistols available today. I have seen MANY men, young and old, LEO, Military and civilian who given their choice prefer the .45 ACP 1911 A1 over the Glock or Sig or Berretta 9mm or .40 S&W.
Can the same case be made for the BAR or the Thompson or the Garand? Are they still valid weapons? Well, that's what prompted this thread.
 
ummm last i checked it was still 2006, hence the 1911 isn't quite 100 years old yet....

I'll take my P220 over a 1911. Though if i had some more money to waste on guns I'd buy one...

Given the tommy gun over nothing I'll take the tommy gun.

I kind of agree the posts are getting repetitive.
 
TNT,

Mines a converted HK94 that was done by Flemming back in the 80's. I dont think it works or shoots any different than any other HK MP5, other than its a conversion.(there are differences in the guns though) I've shot a number of others, both actual MP5's and conversions, and one that was converted like mine from a 94 to a MP5 by HK themselves here in the states. They all worked pretty much the same and I dont remember anyone ever having any troubles with them.

I've slowed down a good bit now, but when I first got it, we were putting a couple of cases a week end through it. Its had more than a couple of cases through it during a day at one sitting, and thats been more than just one or two times. Its been shot hot enough you wouldnt want to touch bare metal, but its been allowed to cool in between shooters and mag loadings.

I also have a el cheapo SWD M11/9mm that has as many or more rounds through it. Its had a lot more failures (mostly due to bad mags) and broken parts, but not all that many when you cosider, and with good mags, its reliable and still going strong. Not bad for a $225 gun. :)


I really dont think the caliber is as much of an issue if your shooting them on full auto. The SMG's work like a shotgun with buckshot, and its the "instantaneous multiple hit" effect on the nervous system that makes it so effective. A solid burst COM, works, be it .380, 9mm, or .45, just like 9 or 16 .30 or .33 caliber pellets out of a 12ga. do. As others have mentioned, it can all be pretty much moot these days once armor comes into play. Pistol caliber guns, along with shotguns, are behind the rifles curve when it comes to power. A solid burst from a M16 or AK will punch through "most" vests that will easily stop the others.

The biggest advantage the MP5 has over the M1A1, and other open bolt guns is, on semi (even on full actually, as you can easily get "one round bursts" once you learn the trigger) it has sniper grade accuracy out to 100 yards or so, due to its firing from a closed bolt and can easily make head shots at that distance, on demand, especially when equipped with a scope or red dot.
 
I've allus figgered that if the subject of a thread is of no interest to me, I probably ought not to bother reading that thread...

:), Art
 
Personally, I'd love to own a thompson sub. If nothing else, they look purdy friggen cool. I've never shot one, but seeing them on G&A and holding a semi-auto and working the action, etc., I find it pretty nice, though a little heavy. Would make an awesome self defense weapom IMO.

I agree, if you don't like the thread, just don't open it, it's that simple.
 
Would the Thompson submachine gun be a good combat submachine gun for today?

I agree with many of the posters that it's outclassed by the UMP or the MP5 in that role. If I had to pick a WWII era SMG for use today, it would be a PPSh-41.

jmm
 
I don't think it would be a good combat SMG today. Sure it might be a good gun for a small town police force but the word "combat" in today's world implies a hundred thousand ground troops with tanks, helicopters, bombers and ships. I think that it also implies a need for weapons which can be easily mass produced using modern tooling. The Thompson was semi-hand-made and required intricate machining, making it difficult to mass produce. It would seem that a better SMG would be one which was stamped or cast and which could be produced quickly in the tens of thousands.
 
The Thompson will not be a good choice as an SMG to fill military requirements in a house-to-house clearing mission, but I'm thinking in the hands of competent operators it can still do the job.

The M4 and similar rifle-caliber carbines don't fill the need for an SMG, they simply eradicate it and makes the whole concept of an SMG obsolete. Or more exactly, the rifle caliber assault carbine is the weapon the original SMG designers
Click to expand...

It is not a good choice since the M4 has better accessories to aid in making the job easier, but even the M4 is not faster than the MP5 when it comes to fast and furious clearing even more when opponents are willing and more than happy to meet their maker. I think the P90 will be a better choice since the rounds are more effective in defeating modern body armor than pistol calibers.
In a close quarter fight you need a fast and agile weapon, first bullet hit where it counts wins. josh
 
Well into the 1980's US Coast Guard used the "Tommy" for boarding ships. As much visual as well as bullet energy-wise it proved to be an effective weapon at sea.

The Tommy's greatest weakness is fairly short range. Difficult to hit a man sized target in the chest with any consistancy beyond 175 yards. Yes, it's been done; but I'm talking about consistancy. This is where the AK-47 wins as a hands-down favorite all across our planet.

When we lived in northern California, a neighbor was a USMC combat veteran of the Pacific Campaign of WW2. He saw a whole lot of action against the "Japs". Very interesting fellow. He favored the Tommygun and grenades above all other weapons and recalled many actual combat situations. Sadly, he died a couple years ago at age 84.
Jack
 
Horse Soldier, Body armor has not made SMG's obsolete. Being shot by a pistol caliber carbine carries a greater chance of penetration than a regular pistol. In fact, gettings shot at all with body armor is still a risk factor. So it is far from obsolete, it may have hinder SOME of its abilities but nothing to the extent of making its use a thing of the past.

The Thompson is a fine weapon but it is heavy and extremely complicated and not to mention expensive. I'd love to own one just to be able to buy a fedora and play mobster for a few hours with some buddies, but if I was in a combat situation, I'd rather take an AK or an M4 with me (I hope I didn't open a barrel of worms..)
 
I know of one instance where a perfect mint M1A Thompson WAS carried in recent combat (Afghanistan).

The American owner carried it lovingly and willingly in place of his M4A1. He KNEW the M4 was more practical on all counts, but just decided that he would never again have the opportunity to exercise his fantasy.

The weapon came from a cache, ammo was plentiful, and that Thompson rocked...everyone wanted it.

The owner had tears in his eyes when he re-deployed and passed it on to its next happy owner.

Most Afghans were duly impressed by that weapon. Most of them couldn't accurately employ their Kalashnikovs at any greater efective range than the Thompson was capable of (100 m).
 
ummm last i checked it was still 2006, hence the 1911 isn't quite 100 years old yet....
Click to expand...

despite it's name, the 1911 was designed in 1905 I believe.


It belongs in the NFA forum, NOT in Art of the Rifle.
Click to expand...

Well, actually I was looking for the Full Auto forum (didn't there used to be one on TFL?) but couldn't find it. Art of Rifle seemed like the closest choice.

EDIT: I just looked a little closer at the summary of NFA Guns and Gear. Didn't it used to be title Full Auto something or other?
 
That was then, this is now - -

:p
Doug.38PR said:
I just looked a little closer at the summary of NFA Guns and Gear. Didn't it used to be title Full Auto something or other?
Click to expand...
Sure did, Doug. There is a lot of interest in other weaponry such as suppressors, Short Barrelled Rifles and Shotguns, AOWs, and such, other than just full auto. Exact forum title and description were topics of much discussion but I think it works pretty well. :D

Johnny
 
Yeah, some members even took it upon themselves to yell at other posters for posting suppressor stuff and other class III stuff.

I would think the Thompson might be too heavy as well.
 
Then again people lugged it back in the day, I don't see why weight should be too much of an issue. Besides, the .45 has that slow moving train UMPH that tends to make sure people stay down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top